NIST doesnt release their computer models (now they've done it!)

AZCat said:
That's the problem. There is a point when "simple physics" is no longer able to accurately describe the situation (such as impact dynamics).
Click to expand...

There is many thing you can test by yourself.

Sophisticated explanation that no one understand is not always required, and often, it's used to mislead people. When it's too elaborated, people don't even try to understand and they say to themselves :" if he is able to think a thing like that, he is probably right"
 
Last edited:
tabouere said:
There is many thing you can test by yourself.

Sophisticated explanation that no one understand is not always required, and often, it's used to mislead people. When it's too elaborated, people don't even try to understand and they say to themself, if he is able to thing like that, he is probably right.
Click to expand...

That may be true, but it still doesn't invalidate those times when sophisticated explanation is required. This is one of them. Comparisons such as yours require knowledge of the time-domain response of materials to impact, because time is what separates the two cases in your comparison. In one case, all impacts are occurring at the same time (because the system of particles is bound together) and in the second case the impacts occur in some unspecified distribution through time (because the system of particles is not bound together and therefore impacts the surface at a time based on the particular particle's location within the system), with the system momentum in each case being equal.
 
AZCat said:
That may be true, but it still doesn't invalidate those times when sophisticated explanation is required. This is one of them. Comparisons such as yours require knowledge of the time-domain response of materials to impact, because time is what separates the two cases in your comparison. In one case, all impacts are occurring at the same time (because the system of particles is bound together) and in the second case the impacts occur in some unspecified distribution through time (because the system of particles is not bound together and therefore impacts the surface at a time based on the particular particle's location within the system), with the system momentum in each case being equal.
Click to expand...

Yep, time separate my two cases. And I know one thing, all debris won't hit the floor below at the very same moment because some will immediatly go trought the concrete of the floor below by creating a single hole in it. Others will fall and stay on the lower floor until it's was completly shattered by others debris.......

I'ts fun to talk to many of you.... Not all, but many. ;)

Good night.
 
tabouere said:
It's possible.

Ok let's make a drawing(it's word to word translation)

If I throw rocks one by one on top of a building, nothing will happen.

If I take all the rock that I've thrown, I fuse them in one giant rock and let it fall on the building, the result will be different.

It's magic
Click to expand...

Really bad analogy.
If you "take all the rock that I've thrown" and drop them all at once on the building the result will be the same as if you "fuse them in one giant rock"

As for the bag of cement analogy:
Get a 1/8 inch thick sheet of plywood, 4' square. support it on 2 edges. Drop the whole bag onto the center of it from 2 feet. Now, empty the bag into a bucket. Invert the bucket from 2 feet onto another sheet of plywood, supported the same way. OOps! Similar result!
 
tabouere said:
Nope, fore sure but both will be damage.

But in the case of the WTC, at least one tower fell verticaly.

So the upper floor fall in a straight on the lower floor.
Click to expand...

Wrong. Both towers leant as they fell.

WTC2
collapse2.jpg


WTC1
6-11_wtc1-collapsing-wnbc.jpg
 
tabouere said:
simple physic and simple observation.
Click to expand...

tabouere said:
Nope, fore sure but both will be damage.

But in the case of the WTC, at least one tower fell verticaly.

So the upper floor fall in a straight on the lower floor.
Click to expand...

1. Your claim was that both sections would be EQUALLY damaged. Others here have shown you that the top section did not come straight down, but on a tilt. Secondly, both sections are NOT moving at identical speeds with opposite velocities. Your SIMPLE OBSERVATIONS should tell you this, since it is what our SIMPLE OBSERVATIONS tell ALL OF US. You havent even taken into account the phenomenon of MOMENTUM!


2. Your other claim was that within a few "impacts" (floor to floor I assume), the top portion is broken into tiny rocks of concrete and steel beams. You have not shown any photographic or film evidence to support this. Any and all evidence of a photographic or video nature shown in this thread, has had dust and smoke completely obscuring the top portion beyond 1-2 seconds of collapse. Your thought that within a couple of impacts, that the top section is fragmented into "tiny rocks" and steel beams is INSANE!! Your "common sense" and your obviously misinterpreted observations are not enough evidence, not even close, to prove to anyone your outrageous claim.

TAM:)
 
tabouere said:
I guess you understand none.

Damn

2- A floor made of SOLID concrete that hit a floor below of the same material will have probably the same kind of damage of the floor below.

1- 2 lbs of powder cement that fell from a height of 2 feet on my feet will do no damage at all if the powder is out of the bag.

If I take some of the powder and make a solid block of concrete with it of 2 lbs and I let fell that block on my feet from a height of two feet, it is possible that it will break my feet.
Click to expand...

Um, the floor wasn't really "solid concrete"- and that's important because you're thinking it's all one solid object, which apparently cannot be damaged.

On the powder thing- the reason you're not getting it is because you are comparing two completely different things. If you drop a 2lb bag of powder on your head, but just the powder- you aren't dropping all of the powder at the same time. You continue to claim that these were the effects on 9/11- but you have not provided any proof whatsoever to substantiate this claim.

Your analogy really makes no sense at all.
 
tabouere said:
I've never said the lower floor withstood the impact of the upper floor with all is weight.

But after many impacts, it stop to collide with all is weight, it's was a multiple impact of a much smaller weight.
Click to expand...

If what you postulate here is correct, than even a controlled demolition of a building would involve explosives on each floor. The way controlled demolition of high-rise buildings now only involve explosives on the bottom floor or floors and they seem to come down just fine, and have powder and lots of little rocks as well.

You seem to fail at understanding the basic laws of physics. The momentum and mass magically disappear in your postulates.
 
tabouere said:
I've never said the lower floor withstood the impact of the upper floor with all is weight.

But after many impacts, it stop to collide with all is weight, it's was a multiple impact of a much smaller weight.
Click to expand...



That could indeed be true, however the problem is, with ever impact that mass increases because the newly collapsed floors are added to it, and that collective mass continues to accelerate. Thus to demonstrate that the building would stop collapsing, you have to demonstrate that somewhere along the line a floor offers more resistance than the additional force added by the addition of another floor's mass and acceleration over 4m of free fall.

And your problem here is, all of the floors are built the same way.

Thing is, the force of the failing material is always increasing. It's gaining mass with every floor it smashes through, and it's gaining velocity with ever meter it falls.

If the first floor isn't going to stop it, why would the second, or third, or tenth?

-Gumboot
 
tabouere said:
Nope, fore sure but both will be damage.

But in the case of the WTC, at least one tower fell verticaly.

So the upper floor fall in a straight on the lower floor.
Click to expand...



This is not true. Both towers tilted as they fell. More importantly, both also twisted as they fell. This means the columns of the upper mass did not line up with the columns of the lower mass.

This is important because it means at impact, when those 240 exterior columns and 47 interior columns struck the intact lower structure, all of the force of that impact was focused in the tiny footprint of those columns (remember, they were hollow), and that force wasn't transferred through the lower section's columns to the ground. Oh no. It was transferred through the light weight floor truss, into the bolts that held the truss to the columns.

Maybe, had the towers fallen so that the upper columns EXACTLY matched the lower columns, it might have stopped there and then. But it didn't. The upper mass in WTC1 hit with the energy of 2.3 tons of TNT, in WTC2 it was 7.2 tons of TNT. And the only thing resisting that energy was the floor truss and the bolts that held it in place. Each floor truss was connected at every second exterior column, 28 along each side. Only 112 contact points, to resist all of that impact force.

-Gumboot
 
Might I suggest, that rather than address tabouere's many "claims" that instead we focus on teaching tabouere how scientific methodology works. It seems clear that (s)he is unfamiliar with it, and as such, is committing fallacy of equivocation after equivocation.
 
tabouere:

Are you familiar with a tool called a "dead blow hammer"? The name is probably different in french, but the purpose isn't. The hammer head is hollow, and filled with shot. It is more effective in transferring momentum to the thing it's hitting than a solid hammer, because the hammer doesn't rebound from the target.
The principal is the same as broken bits of building hitting other bits of building.
 
tabouere let me try to explain a cascading collapse to you. As the upper storys impact the top most floor of the lower section in the collapse initiation the floor does not turn instantly to powder, it begins to fall on the floor below it in a sort of cascade or stack. So you have a moving stack of floors accelerating as the building collapses. The bottom of this moving stack it constantly replaced by a new floor as the collapse progresses. As the floor moves through this stack from bottom to top it becomes less of a solid and more of a gravel or powder because it is subjected to repeated impacts from the collision of the floors below it in the stack. Until it reaches the top of the stack and is but dust' dense powder and aggregate. This moving stack can be a few storys from three at initiation to a dozen or more depending on how far down into the collapse the building has progressed. When the stack reaches the ground the weight of the stack crushes what remains under it as it stops. And what you see in the photo you posted is debris of varying density topped with precipitate.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom